When is it too close?

[EricBowles]

Yep..
baiting or whatever it all depends on what a person thinks...and like another reply I’ve got a friend that decries baiting but says his bird feeders are “different”.

Audubon actually supports bird feeders, but there are cases where bird feeders are a possible cause in the spread of diseases. There is also the point of view that bird feeders actually support bird life by giving them supplemental food at times when food is scarce. Some species do feed at feeders, but supplement that with wild food so feeders are only a small part of their diet.

It gets even more complicated when you look at specific species. Some birds have had significant population growth from support with bird houses and feeders. At the same time, growth in one species can create extra competition leading to a decline in other species.

The line can be drawn based on the purpose of providing supplemental food. Is the food being provided regularly regardless of whether or not a photographer or birder is present? Or is the food only provided to attract subjects so they can be photographed? Is the food truly beneficial for the subject, or is it being withdrawn or limited. Does supplemental food change behavior resulting in aggressive animals or over reliance on human provided food? Some might argue providing a mouse or rat to a hawk or owl when food is scarce is actually helping the animal.

 

[jeffnles1]

Audubon actually supports bird feeders, but there are cases where bird feeders are a possible cause in the spread of diseases. There is also the point of view that bird feeders actually support bird life by giving them supplemental food at times when food is scarce. Some species do feed at feeders, but supplement that with wild food so feeders are only a small part of their diet.

It gets even more complicated when you look at specific species. Some birds have had significant population growth from support with bird houses and feeders. At the same time, growth in one species can create extra competition leading to a decline in other species.

The line can be drawn based on the purpose of providing supplemental food. Is the food being provided regularly regardless of whether or not a photographer or birder is present? Or is the food only provided to attract subjects so they can be photographed? Is the food truly beneficial for the subject, or is it being withdrawn or limited. Does supplemental food change behavior resulting in aggressive animals or over reliance on human provided food? Some might argue providing a mouse or rat to a hawk or owl when food is scarce is actually helping the animal.

Yep I agree.

One lesson I've learned over my 61 years on this planet is there are things most agree are OK, and things most agree are not OK and a whole lot of gray area in-between.

 

[jeffnles1]

I pulled my feeders down last year due Salmonellosis outbreak, it was a sad time. Looks like a few cases have been popping up on the West side of the Cascades so I am keeping an eye out for signs of the disease but so far the birds are doing good this winter and large numbers of happy Goldfinches here.
Obviously I enjoy the bird feeders and keep them out as much as possible. The cleanup crew is a hundred or so Mourning Doves every morning and hundreds of fat California Quail.
The owls and falcons take care of our mice and they don't need any supplementation other than if we get a mouse I use a live trap and release it in the desert behind our place in the brush.

we have a couple neighborhood Cooper's hawks that nail doves at our feeders from time to time. We jokingly say "we feed the doves, the doves feed the hawks."

 

[O]

@Steve if this becomes contentious, please delete the post. I don't want to start an argument just a discussion. As background, my wife and I were photographing at a nearby national wildlife refuge. We were there mainly to see the resident river otters and get some photos which we did. It was tough heat shimmer conditions but we managed a couple. Upon moving on down the road, we saw a couple cars parked along the road. Looking into the woods, there was an Eastern Screech Owl sleeping n a tree hole. Very cute. Our car heater was already off so we shot a few out the window. Seeing we still had heat shimmer, we went to the other side of the road (well more like a gravel goat path) and stood behind the vehicle so the vehicle was between us and the owl. The idea was to not disturb it any more than our car going down a dusty road may have. The other photographers in the cars did much the same. As we started to move on, a car pulled up and two people got out and went to the edge of the woods about 25 feet from where the owl was sleeping and they were not being very stealthy. We drove a couple hundred yards down the road to see what would happen. About 5 minutes later, another car pulled up and 2 more people got out and walked even closer than the first 2 people (and later as we were coming back from the other end of the refuge, yet another car was there with 2 people even more in the woods).

I have photos below of an un-cropped out of camera jpg, a processed RAW file and some photos of the individuals. Because I do not know who they are and they may even be members here, I have smudged out all parts of the photo where the people could be recognizable. The intent here is not to "shame" anyone or to call anyone out.

The questions are when are we too close? I don't want the entire ethics debate here there are plenty of places to find that discussion on-line and recreating it here doesn't create good will among friends. What I do want to talk about is "optics" of photographers getting close enough to wildlife that it can appear to be harassment or bothering the animals. I'm quite sure the people who got 15 feet from the owl got better and more clear photos than I did. However, if a ranger or conservation officer were to happen by I'm sure he/she would have told the people to get back to the road.

Perhaps by going to the other side of the "road" I was being overly cautious but I figured 20 feet farther away wasn't going to make that much difference. After all, it was a screech owl sleeping in a tree. It wasn't a "National Geographic Cover" shot regardless of how close.

What say you?

Here are my photos of the scene.
Straight out of camera untouched.
View attachment 31765


Cropped and moderately edited from RAW file.
View attachment 31766

First 2 people. The red circle is where the owl was sleeping.
View attachment 31767

Next group of people even closer. (no it's not Sasquatch although I may be able to sell this photo as a pair of Sasquatch after I've appropriately blurred the background too... but that's a different topic).
View attachment 31768

Its absolutely the right thing to always respect wild life and its environment, so many of us do, sadly many don't.
Their is a fine line with obsessiveness in both direction, its all subject to opinion.
We are beach, island and Bush travelers, we are very careful, when swimming we are often surrounded by or near dolphins when swimming........its the shape of their dorsal fin that is critical to recognize before panicking.

 

[Anjin San]

Depends how used to humans they are.
Recently at a location in Florida I saw a pair of Sandhill cranes come down the path, a little ahead of me. I sat down on the path to one side, moved slowly and quietly and they walked right past me not 6ft away totally unperturbed.

I’ve had that happen as well… could have used a 24-70 for the shot. When we were at Katmai NP in Alaska I had a 600ish pound brown bear walk between the 6 of us and the edge of the stream…we measured it later and the edge was about 10 feet away…nobody ever told the bears about the 75 yard rule in the NP. He just eyeballed us as he walked by…he was fishing and didn’t care about us. Pilot had some beer spray but no guns allowed in the NP…good thing he wasn’t interested in us.

 

[John Navitsky]

FWIW, from Brad Hill's blog:

2. Wildlife Photography Ethics Discussion (on The Camera Store TV)


• DESCRIPTION: This interactive discussion with Canadian Wildlife photographers and experts John E. Marriott , Brad Hill, and Dave Elphinstone, will explore topics related to photographing wildlife in a variety of locations from the wilderness to natural city parks. We will cover best practices with recommendations from these experts. They will also highlight ways that photographers can help make a difference to protect wildlife and preserve natural areas.


• WHEN: Thurs, Feb 24, 2022, 9-10:30 EST (7-9:30 MST).
• WHERE: Just like above - on any "connected" device, like your iPad, iPhone, laptop, et cetera.
• COST: FREE!
• HOW TO REGISTER: Two different ways for this one...


A. Here on eventbrite: Wildlife Photography Ethics Discussion OR...
B. Right here on The Camera Store's website: Wildlife Photography Ethics Discussion

 

[Manglo]

This was too close!

Seriously, I prefer to sit still and let the animal decide. They often get closer than I was expecting! They know I'm there and not a threat. For example, this Pine Squirell came along while we were eating lunch at the truck. It scolded us for a few minutes, then settled in for a nap. It would have never let me get this close (300mm lens) if I had been walking!!!

What a cute scene. Love it.
Manuel

 

[Calson]

The rule has always been that one should not cause an animal to change its natural behavior as a result of the photographer's behavior. In terms of distance the problem is often that people are impatient and will not take the time to slowly approacha a subject or to go in an oblique manner so they are not perceived as a predator.